conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:New Singapore Free City
This is bullshit --Rasmusbyg 09:26, June 26, 2010 (UTC) LOL Lets give away 100,000 people to a horrible country for some stock shares... Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 09:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC) : He can't just take our cities! --Rasmusbyg 10:34, June 26, 2010 (UTC) What do you want? And yes I can, it's in the FW Rules. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:23, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Fine then Songkhla is hereby a free city administered by the Soviet Union! --Rasmusbyg 15:53, June 26, 2010 (UTC) You're not allowed to take other players' territory... —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:01, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Well since you are I guess I am to ! --Rasmusbyg 16:08, June 26, 2010 (UTC) I had the territory first... —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC) DK, at this point, I have determined that your cities are nothing more than useless disruptions to gameplay and therefore anyone that decides to create a country is entitled to repossess the free city, should there be one. Please provide a valid reason for gathering up cities everywhere. So far, all I see this as is a disruption. Until you can provide an explanation for what these cities are for and why they are necessary, Sir Spart may repossess Quepos and TM & Rasmus may repossess Yalta and Kamchatka. This free city stuff is far unrealistic. No one would give away chunks of land for stocks. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:30, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Reasons: Arequipa: Important cultural centre and center for OIS, means of getting ahold of Fujimori and supporters Wroclaw: Getting a hold of central Europe, means of controllling countries such as Franco-Germany, Soviet Union, or even Poland if necessary, gateway to the North Atlantic, initiation of relations with Poland Never cared much about Yalta but you waited until now to complain so: means of getting control of the Black Sea, keeping the Soviet Union in check on aformentioned water body, tourism revenue Kamchatka: means of getting ahold of the abused Republic of China, indirectly controlling northern North America Quepos: gateway to North America for OIS, increased tourism revenue would benefit both countries —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:54, June 26, 2010 (UTC) How does having a random tiny city "control" these chunks of the world? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:13, June 26, 2010 (UTC) The ROC is the only one that makes sense, the rest are, like i stated a while back, beachheads for invasion, and now that you have confirmed my theory, I am against them all.Gatemonger 21:05, June 26, 2010 (UTC) More like easy to overrun, easy to occupy zones. These people inside most likely hate Yarphei and many are probably enraged that they are both oppressed by Yarphese officials and enraged at the fact their original governments abandoned them to such a horrible nation. Most would welcome liberators and would cause rebellion against Yarphese forces stationed in the cities should war break out. They aren't very stable beachheads. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 21:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC) go to chat, UPGatemonger 21:56, June 26, 2010 (UTC) Why would war break out? They're safe and they're tax havens. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:29, June 27, 2010 (UTC) I want Yalta and Kamchatka. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC Hey, you don't just say that. You're not providing any reason anyway. "Until you can provide an explanation for what these cities are for and why they are necessary" which I just did. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 15:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Asking for permission to attack and LIBERATE our cities ASAP ! --Rasmusbyg 17:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Huh? Well you can't debate Kamchatka. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:48, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Huh? Well you can't keep Yalta. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 17:56, June 27, 2010 (UTC) Why not? I wrote an article about it, and it has a perfectly plausible explanation. Why do you need it so bad? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:42, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Why so much fighting over a tiny resort town in the middle of nowhere? Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, ) 04:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC) I could care less, unless they become threats to my country, ie a missile silo being built on Kamchatka or troops start amassing. I will attack if the ROC government is threatened in any way, because I happen to have a personal affinity for that nation, feeling bad they were unjustly mistreated by he PRC. Once cantonese is up and running, will they move back to taiwan? btw, i reccomend you take a different city in the central american region, ie: modify the quepos article so it says caracas. or make kamchatka some city in the greek islands. just ideas. Gatemonger 04:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC) I was thinking about annexing the whole of Taiwan, but yea, there's the CR. So I'm waiting on that. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, ) 04:25, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ROC is not going back, I don't think. The plan was to take all of Taiwan with Cantonese and EAF, but I felt bad for ROC so I just did something with it. I had ancestors under the Guomindang, so it's sort of my responsibility. There's no city like Quepos enough that I could just modify it. And I gave a reason for Kamchatka in the article. No Greek Island is going to be able to handle the millions of pilgrimaging Chinese. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Those aren't good reasons. What reason does Yarphei have to cover up the real reason. I want Yalta. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:23, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Tourism, duh. People like to go interesting places. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 16:40, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Isn't that the same reason the Soviet Union wants it? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:11, June 28, 2010 (UTC) Interesting as in small tax haven, site of famous WWII summit, now a tiny speck of land owned by an Asian superpower. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 20:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC) YEAH, SO WHY WOULD THE USSR GIVE IT TO YARPHEI. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 23:01, June 28, 2010 (UTC) If you keep it it's not owned by an Asian superpower. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 00:59, June 29, 2010 (UTC) What continent is the USSR on? Oh, right! both europe AND asia. asian superpower. If Yarphei loses Kamchatka for whatever reason, can the ROC take refuge in FGC? Just like you, DK I believe the PRC isnt the rightful government of China. I also want to invite the exiled Republic of China to be a member of the Hesperian Alliance. They are a blank, so I can do this, right?Gatemonger 01:23, June 29, 2010 (UTC) The CPC kicked the KMT out, so I'd say they won the civil war in the mainland, however, I think that the KMT was right in relocating to Taiwan, and that Taiwan is a separate country than the mainland. None of this matters, because I effectively crippled the ROC. Woogers, Ruler of (random nonsense, Koiwai, Saikyo, ) 01:39, June 29, 2010 (UTC) USSR is not Asian. It's Europeans ruling Asians, that' what it is. What continent is Moscow on? Did I hear Africa? I'm not sure. I'd like to but... Technically, I own the Republic of China, having put it under the Vietnamese Liberation Army. So technically it's part of Yarphei. Yarphei won't lose Kamchatka; I wouldn't let that happen because it's my territory lulz. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 02:43, June 29, 2010 (UTC) China is BLANK and CAN'T be controlled.. so Getmonger you can let them join your alliance. UP said we could take back Yalta so bye bye Yarphei! --Rasmusbyg 05:28, June 29, 2010 (UTC) :South China actually isn't a blank, its reserved. You lose the first part of the argument. And he said you can have Yalta if reasons for its hold weren't provided, and they have been. They're currently under discussion and until it's been resolved, Yalta is more or less floating. Woogers - talk ( ) 06:45, June 29, 2010 (UTC) The stupid thing is: Why the hell would the USSR give away a very popular tourist location, site of famous ww2 summit, and 100,000 people to a dictatorship that we aren't allied with that is far to the southeast for some stock shares. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 13:33, June 29, 2010 (UTC) The USSR didn't give it away, lol, it was given away before the USSR existed. And its not really stock shares, it shares of a reasonably strong currency to back your central bank with. Woogers - talk ( ) 13:52, June 29, 2010 (UTC) The Huo is stable, not valuable. And since the ATL is that the USSR never died, that's null. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC) In the Future World rules, metatime overrules the ATL, and in metatime Detectivekenny laid claim to Yalta before you and Rasmus drew up the New Soviet Men. And stability is something every bank needs in times of financial instability, which is probably why such an offer may have had some appeal to the previous blank owner of Yalta. Woogers - talk ( ) 14:40, June 29, 2010 (UTC) And why would Russia give away a very popular tourist location, site of famous ww2 summit, and 100,000 people to a dictatorship that it isn't allied with that is far to the southeast for that? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:52, June 29, 2010 (UTC) Because both countries would benefit… It would attract maybe three times as many tourists under Yarphei, and the USSR gets shares of a stable currency. And once again, there's no dictatorship, it's a Free City, once again, so it's more free than any European country would ever be, except for the large amount of troops stationed around the city. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 03:09, June 30, 2010 (UTC) No replies for about five days. No more argument, I'll just remove the template. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:46, July 4, 2010 (UTC) The USSR does not give away 100,000 people and a historical site to a authoritarian country. It doesn't matter what they get in return. It's just goddamn annoying and stupid. Period. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:32, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Eminent domain and double jeopardy………… ooooh, epic. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 20:58, July 29, 2010 (UTC) Or any country, for that matter. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:10, July 30, 2010 (UTC) So? —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 17:59, August 22, 2010 (UTC) This will be fine. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:12, August 22, 2010 (UTC) Future matters Before an argument like this breaks out again, I have a recommendation. If any country wants a small enclave/exclave in another country, the matter should be handled in an IC matter. Nobody can just make an article saying they have the city, but rather start off with the invasion/buying of the respective location. For example, when the AS government falls at the end of the year, and the new government (EVIL little American government) is established, I am going to be invading many blanks (with permission of course), and take cities like DK has... but I will do it in a few parts, first, the invasion, the foreign reactions, the result. Easy... the point of a roleplaying game is to keep most of everything in character, and that isn't what is happening here. Just my two cents. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:36, August 22, 2010 (UTC) On a side note, you should throw in the American Fascist Alliance into the coup d'etat for realism and fun. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 04:55, August 24, 2010 (UTC) We have enough useless pointless cities stealing chunks of land away from future game players already. And there isn't much good territory left for future players to use besides the UK, remaining Australia/Oceania, remaining USA, remaining Canada and Scandinavia. Now we are going to have 100 little useless BS cities all over the place, pissing off new players and everyone else. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 09:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Don't forget India and South America. You can't escape the fact that you excluded them as "good" countries and included only European ones. I shall make note of this. —Detectivekenny; (Info) Preceding text certified by R. Xun as of 14:13, August 24, 2010 (UTC) I say, if new players want the city, they need to take it IC, because that is what it is, IC... For example, lets say a player wants to create his country where a Free City is, he can easily create a page Rebellion in (Free City name). How can this be that hard to accomplish? Just add to the rules that things are to be set right in an RP matter, and not provoke OOC bullshit arguments between e-friends. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 17:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Or if they don't want it to have ever existed, they can remove it OOC. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:32, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Well... no... that is why I made this discussion. I am completely against taking most things OOC, it defeats the purpose of RP. If someone wants an area where a Free City is, take it IC... buy the land from Yarphei... invade the land... nuke the land... whatever, just keep it IC. I don't know who agrees with me, but this can really help a lot, as it is and has worked with many MANY other RP games/forums I am/was involved with. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:09, August 25, 2010 (UTC) I am against any ideas against OOC territory taking. Why should new people have to edit their nations because some nation is buying these cities around the world? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:47, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Because other players (we) actually put time and effort into forming our own alt-history. Then a new player comes and wipes everything. All our nations were formed ICly. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC) What if you were the joining person, and say EAF had disconnected. Then week after, someone comes who wants Japan. They can't have been founded before the EAF got disconnected. Then you'd would have to be just formed and it would ruin your history. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:21, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Look at what I did with Caucasus... they can just incorporate their history into the other history. The thing is, this is an ongoing game, if someone wants to join, and they don't like what's going on, they don't have to join. It is simple really, but then again... this is just my opinion. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:28, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Yeah. But your history was very similar. What if someone doesn't want that to happen, but then since Everett wants it to happen they have to have a war in 2008. . .—Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC) I see what you mean, but I still think this game will become much more exciting and eventful if everything was kept IC. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:43, August 25, 2010 (UTC)